Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jonas Jelten <jj@××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Migrate to Phabricator
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:35:16
Message-Id: 5714E283.1000909@stusta.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Migrate to Phabricator by Kent Fredric
1 On 2016-04-18 15:10, Kent Fredric wrote:
2 > On 18 April 2016 at 23:44, Jonas Jelten <jj@××××××.net> wrote:
3 >> especially to dump bugzilla.
4 >
5 > Dumping bugzilla at this time would be a regression really. "Lets just
6 > discard millions of bugs and their history and important context" is
7 > not really an option for a web accessible opensource project with lots
8 > of inbound links, some of which are stashed in git commit messages,
9 > and are essentially unfixable.
10
11 I was more thinking of a migration so all tickets and all history is
12 preserved of course. One could even implement a redirector that still
13 accepts the bugzilla links but forwards to the migrated new ticket.
14
15 >
16 >> It provides a tightly coupled set of project management tools. https://phacility.com/phabricator/
17 >
18 > I tend to find "tightly coupled" a synonym for "fragile" and "Inflexible".
19 >
20 > If there was a way for somebody to informally set up a phabricator
21 > instance in a non-committal manner
22 > that could be used merely for review purposes, that'd be nice.
23
24 I'm pretty sure that works. As far as I understood the setup, one can
25 disable any component without being fragile. I'm not sure what you mean
26 by inflexible, I'm just guessing that each tool does what it promises
27 and can interact with others nicely, and you just pick those you want.
28
29 Of course the wiki/documentation module is not useable for us as we have
30 the mediawiki.
31
32 We can enable more and more components over time, starting with the code
33 review thingy first if it works out.
34
35 >
36 > But "lets change to this cool new thing because its cool" is something
37 > that doesn't resonate with me.
38 >
39 > To 'Change' It has to be _proven_ useful for our usecases, and
40 > _proven_ to be _better_ than what we have, not dubious, tenuous and
41 > relatively unknown.
42 >
43 > I'd want to be personally comfortable with using it before I ever
44 > voted in favour of gentoo changing to it.
45 >
46 > And I'd expect all other devs to require that same high standard.
47
48 Agree'd. The first step might be setting up an instance that can somehow
49 sync all the status from ongoing work. Then people can play around and
50 try whether it fits their workflows.
51 However I'm not sure how comfortable and easy this is to accomplish.
52
53 >
54 > Also: I Hold defacto reservations about anything written in PHP, due
55 > to both personal history with PHP, and the significant number of PHP
56 > projects with both atrocious code and glaring security defects.
57
58 That is a point, not sure if bugzilla does any better though ;)
59 Still, I can't say how good their code is, I've just used the result and
60 it was impressing.
61
62
63 >
64 > So I would want to be sure that not only is it better than what we
65 > have, but it is _at least_ as secure as what we have, and I'd want to
66 > be assured that the development team of Phabricator are competent and
67 > its not just yet-another-fly-by-night product.
68
69 If blender and wikimedia switched to it, it might actually have some
70 benefits. Which should not mean we follow blindly, but we should
71 consider its usability bonus.
72
73 >
74 >
75 >> Migrating would contradict the apparent goal of integrating github more tightly,
76 >
77 > I have no idea where this "apparent goal" came from: "tight" github
78 > integration is not and has never been "on the table".
79 >
80 > Github is purely a voluntary auxiliary process intended to allow
81 > people to augment their workflow in semi-useful ways, and then, some
82 > of the things github provides is harmful ( Githubs inability to handle
83 > rebased pulls makes people do horrible long merge commits )
84 >
85 > Its been repeatedly stated that Github must never be "Relied upon" in
86 > a mandatory way, because it is inherently proprietary and usurps all
87 > the authority that Gentoo infra have, and puts the Gentoo organisation
88 > at Githubs mercy, and this would be entirely unconscionable as the
89 > "only pathway".
90 >
91
92 I'm fully aware of that, what I'm trying to say is that many of github's
93 features are present in phabricator, which would make us more
94 independent again. Which does not mean I hate github and wanna leave it
95 etc, just that phabricator can give us another, self-hosted contribution
96 plattform.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature